NINO wrote:How is it that a 3 times married, twice divorced guy fits in with Catholics?

...If Gingrich has repented, then of course he should be accepted, by any Bible-believing church he wishes to attend.

He has rrrepented thrrrice!!!

In Scott's church, it's OK if you're a Republican.

.This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise or at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.

ST wrote:What Newt did was wrong, sinful and immoral. However, it cannot be fixed. What do you expect him to do? Divorce his third wife to go back to his second?

"VietVet" claimed I said something I never once said. In other words, "VietVet" is a liar.

Now, back to the theological issue.

In 1 Corinthians 5, The Apostle Paul writes:

It is reported commonly that there is fornication among you, and such fornication as is not so much as named among the Gentiles, that one should have his father's wife.

Paul commands the Corinthians to "put away from among yourselves that wicked person."

But in 2 Corinthians 2:5-8, Paul commands the Corinthians to forgive the wicked man and restore him to fellowship. The reason he is to be forgiven and restored to fellowship is because he has repented of his wickedness.

The application to Gingrich, of course,is this: if he has repented of his wickedness, any Bible-believing church is obligated by Scripture to forgive him and restore him to fellowship. That doesn't mean it's OK, it means he is a sinner saved by grace.

Of course, "VietVet" won't care about the theological argument, nor will he care about whether a Christian church is following the foundational document of the Christian faith.

Instead, "VietVet" will fabricate yet another argument I have never once posted, knock it down and pretend he has actually accomplished something. He'll prove himself to be a liar once again.

Scott Tibbs wrote:"VietVet" claimed I said something I never once said.

What is that?

You seem to have fabricated yet another argument I have never once posted...

.This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise or at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.

VietVet wrote:You seem to have fabricated yet another argument I have never once posted...

So, you're too much of a coward to own what you posted.

So, you're too much of a coward to argue with what I really wrote, and only want to address the straw man that you erected. Not a surprise.

Let us, as you say, review the record:

VietVet wrote:He has rrrepented thrrrice!!!

In Scott's church, it's OK if you're a Republican.

Gingrich has been through the marry/ cheat/ divorce/ repent cycle three times, after a career as a family values crusader, insulting Democrats repeatedly as inherently less righteous. Do you deny that?

You've proclaimed at length that you're alright with that. I have no objection to your "theological argument," but the premise that he has repented is absurd. He was on TV yesterday, smirking and lying. He made a vicious attack on Nancy Pelosi, and when it was pointed out that he and other Republicans had accused the CIA of dishonesty last year, he didn't bat an eye. He's still the same guy who treated his wives so badly -- a cad. He could go through the whole cycle again, and you could make the same argument. You would, too, because he follows the same false religion as you. Which is NOT Christianity of a form very many people believe in.

So I do own what I've said -- do you? Or perhaps the emoticon hurt your feelings?

.This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise or at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.

VietVet wrote:Gingrich has been through the marry/ cheat/ divorce/ repent cycle three times, after a career as a family values crusader, insulting Democrats repeatedly as inherently less righteous. Do you deny that?

You've proclaimed at length that you're alright with that.

Then show me where I said I am "alright" with Gingrich committing adultery, divorcing his wife, and marrying again. (More than once.) Show me the literal, word-for-word text of a post where I said that. Go ahead, do it. I dare you.

You can't, because I never did. In fact, I made it very clear that Gingrich's actions were sinful and to be condemned. That's absolute truth.

Nonetheless, if Gingrich repented, the Catholic church is obligated by the Bible to accept him back into fellowship, as I demonstrated earlier.

You're an internet crank, hiding behind a fake name like a coward, posting false accusations and lies. Your "opinion" means less than nothing.

VietVet wrote:I have no objection to your "theological argument," but the premise that he has repented is absurd.

You might be right. His repentance might not be real. I believe him, and you don't.

But my argument is not and has never been about politics. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with politics. My argument is about theology, and a Christian church following the commands of the Bible.

We have no argument about theology. I call Newt Gingrich a hypocrite and a liar. You seem to be denying that your support for him is political, to want to conflate it with religion.

And you might want to look in the mirror, if you're going to post about internet cranks posting false accusations and lies.

.This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise or at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.

VietVet wrote:You seem to be denying that your support for him is political, to want to conflate it with religion.

This thread was posted in the religion forum, you fool. The topic of this thread is about Gingrich converting to Catholicism, you fool. This thread has nothing to do with politics, and my argument has nothing to do with politics.

You are the one who is making this political. My argument is and has always been about theology.

Scott Tibbs wrote:But my argument is not and has never been about politics. My argument has absolutely nothing to do with politics. My argument is about theology, and a Christian church following the commands of the Bible.

And is thus irrelevant to the politics of a secular democratic republic where this creep Newt can be driven into oblivion whatever his status is with the religious cults.

Indeed, hopefully he will be driven into political oblivion precisely because of his religious hysteria.

There does seem to be a RCC virus going around among the global political class. Anyone working on a vaccination? Be sure to get it to Bush who I think is a crypto RC.

Black and White Comments Offered Without Context or A Rat's Ass Concern About Louie's Mood.

VietVet wrote:You seem to be denying that your support for him is political, to want to conflate it with religion.

This thread was posted in the religion forum, you fool. The topic of this thread is about Gingrich converting to Catholicism, you fool.

[url=http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/23257/eVerseID/23257]But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.[/url]

This thread has nothing to do with politics, and my argument has nothing to do with politics. You are the one who is making this political. My argument is and has always been about theology.

Bullshit. Your intention has always been to support Newt as a political leader. He's the leader of your church, the lying hypocritical right-wing fundamentalist assholes.

.This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise or at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.

VietVet wrote:[url=http://bibletools.org/index.cfm/fuseaction/Bible.show/sVerseID/23257/eVerseID/23257]But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.[/url]

I guess Jesus, who was without sin, was in danger of hell fire for calling people fools too.

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifieth the gold? -- Matthew 23:17

Ye fools and blind: for whether is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifieth the gift? -- Matthew 23:19

Ye fools, did not he that made that which is without make that which is within also? -- Luke 11:40

Scott Tibbs wrote:I guess Jesus, who was without sin, was in danger of hell fire for calling people fools too.

Scott Tibbs is like Jesus?

You're still defending your political leader, and arguing that we should accept his moral leadership after badly mistreating at least two women while proclaiming his standing to lecture on family values. His morality seems to be very adaptable, and so does yours.

.This disposition to admire, and almost to worship, the rich and powerful, and to despise or at least neglect persons of poor and mean conditions, is the great and most universal cause of the corruption of our moral sentiments.

VietVet wrote:You're still defending your political leader, and arguing that we should accept his moral leadership after badly mistreating at least two women while proclaiming his standing to lecture on family values. His morality seems to be very adaptable, and so does yours.

You are a liar. Every single argument I have made in this thread is about theology and how a Christian church should behave toward repentant sinners based on the foundational document of the Christian faith. You are the one making this thread, posted in the religion forum about Gingrich's conversion to Catholicism, about politics.

And you're too much of a petulant child to admit your lies even when your statements have been proven false.

Grow up, be a man, and admit you are wrong.

No wonder you hide behind a fake name like a coward. You lie so brazenly, you must be ashamed to admit your real name.